Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.

One of the things I have been noticing in my "yin dimension" research is that everything is tending towards a 3D expression, either the conventional length-width-depth or, for rotation, the rotational vector of the quaternion.

So what about the 1D particles, the electron and positron? The electron, being a "rotating unit of space" can be easily explained as the projection of a more complex, cosmic structure, since only the net magnitude of motion can be transmitted across the unit speed boundary (Larson: net linear speed, RS2: linear speed + spin speed). So, the electron can be just a cosmic, quaternion rotation that we observe as a 1D particle (since we cannot directly observe coordinate time).

But what of the positron? Being a temporal displacement like the other atoms, it cannot be a projection. So I started to question of the positron actually existed as an independent particle... well, yes, it "sort of" does.

Positrons are not found in the natural environment ("extremely scarce" is the term). Electrons are abundant. Larson said that positrons are readily absorbed by atomic rotation systems, since time/time is not motion. Makes sense. But where to they come from? Well, there are only TWO known sources of positrons, and both are from something breaking up: gamma ray decay, producing a positron-electron pair, and radioactive decay, as β+ emission.

We don't find them anywhere else in the material system--they are, essentially, a fragment of a broken quaternion.

A quaternion is just a sphere, and a sphere only requires two angles to define it, analogous to the latitude and longitude that we use to locate any spot on Earth. So when it breaks down, that 4D quaternion becomes a pair of 2D particles--a complex complex quantity that we call a "1D" motion, since we only count the rotational operators in these systems (complex=[a,<i>] is 1D, quaternion=[a,<i,j,k>] is 3D).

Now, in the cosmic sector, the opposite is true... positrons are plentiful (as a projection) and electrons are scarce, being only the product of antimatter decay.

This changes the way that electric current may be looked at. Gopi's use of 1D electrons and 2D holes may actually be an entire, 4D system... the c-neutrino being observed as the electron, and the m-neutrino as the 2D hole. This is why they can "flip" so easily between 1D and 2D--it is the environment that changes the appearance, not the particle altering its spin.

Still thinking on this... but it does simplify things a great deal. We exist in a 3D universe, both in a linear and angular form. Everything seeks to become 3D, smaller dimensions combine to build up, higher dimensions break up to build down. Nehru defined this as the zone of dimensional stability. Natural interactions occur to bring things into dimensional balance... after all, Nature likes balance.

We exist in a 3D universe, both in a linear and angular form. Everything seeks to become 3D, smaller dimensions combine to build up, higher dimensions break up to build down. Nehru defined this as the zone of dimensional stability. Natural interactions occur to bring things into dimensional balance... after all, Nature likes balance.

So where do octonians/life fit in that model? You just defined Nature as being against higher levels of complexity.

On a note of devils advocate, it could be argued about this model that if applied to itself, nothing appears to prevent quaternions from being the observable projections of sixteenians. Or fragments of thirtytwonians.

Regarding projection, it has consistently seemed odd to me that a projection or appearance can Do Work. Projection and appearance are just other words for illusion, and illusions have no motive power in themselves. If I place a mirror above my head and the earth suddenly appears like it's above me due to my perspective change, where is the motion in that? If I unplug my monitor from the graphics card, does the video data suddenly vanish from the memory buffer of the video card? If I plug in a 3D holographic monitor, does the video data in memory suddenly change?

If positrons actually exist and can do work, they don't stop existing and working just because someone with a camera moved to a different perspective.
The example for electrons would be to argue that they stop existing and working when they rotate out of sight to a different axis and "pop out of existence". In other words, some more extant reality must exist below the various projections.

So where do octonians/life fit in that model? You just defined Nature as being against higher levels of complexity.

Nehru and I had this discussion a long time ago... lower and higher dimensions are not prohibited, but they are an "unstable" condition. Life is an unstable condition... that octonian life structure is eventually going to degenerate (die) down to 3D dirt and water.

On a note of devils advocate, it could be argued about this model that if applied to itself, nothing appears to prevent quaternions from being the observable projections of sixteenians. Or fragments of thirtytwonians.

It is possible, but that is well beyond the realm of man's observation and experience. My focus is on determining the "rules" that create the reality we experience, which is limited to Larson's three levels of existence.

The New Age has gone a long way into confusing the experiences of Nature, promoting all sorts of nonsensical concepts... "Wanderer's from the 24½ density!" I've worked with the New Age for many decades and these higher dimensional constructs they push always come down to either fantasia or misidentification. The "Flat Earth" resurgence is a good example of that.

Regarding projection, it has consistently seemed odd to me that a projection or appearance can Do Work. Projection and appearance are just other words for illusion, and illusions have no motive power in themselves. If I place a mirror above my head and the earth suddenly appears like it's above me due to my perspective change, where is the motion in that? If I unplug my monitor from the graphics card, does the video data suddenly vanish from the memory buffer of the video card? If I plug in a 3D holographic monitor, does the video data in memory suddenly change?

You are still thinking in terms of "things," rather than motion (change). "Work" is not associated with things, it is associated with change. Motion is a cross-ratio (as discussed elsewhere), which is the ONLY concept that is projectively invariant.

When you hold your hand above your eyes to block the sun, your vision changes--the shadow on your face HAS done work. And that shadow is nothing more than a 2D projection of your 3D hand.

This is the biggest hurdling block in the RS--to stop thinking in terms of "little blocks of matter" and start thinking in terms of "abstract change," which is not easy to do, takes a while, and requires a lot of introspection. I'm not even sure it CAN be taught--that comprehension must come from inside yourself. But once you have it, it is like having the key that unlocks the secrets of the Universe.

The example for electrons would be to argue that they stop existing and working when they rotate out of sight to a different axis and "pop out of existence". In other words, some more extant reality must exist below the various projections.

I can't build a simulation when I start with projections.

The only constant is change. Change can be expressed in a computer as a cross ratio using the concept of numbers. That resulting rate of change is what Larson calls "motion."

But what of the positron? Being a temporal displacement like the other atoms, it cannot be a projection. So I started to question of the positron actually existed as an independent particle... well, yes, it "sort of" does.

Positrons are not found in the natural environment ("extremely scarce" is the term). Electrons are abundant. Larson said that positrons are readily absorbed by atomic rotation systems, since time/time is not motion. Makes sense. But where to they come from? Well, there are only TWO known sources of positrons, and both are from something breaking up: gamma ray decay, producing a positron-electron pair, and radioactive decay, as β+ emission.

We don't find them anywhere else in the material system--they are, essentially, a fragment of a broken quaternion.

So, if electrons are actually some larger particle projecting as a 1d particle, and positrons are fragments of...something, then what do the cosmic fragments of said something appear as?

Also, if electrons are projections due to the net magnitude constraint, then 100% of cosmic atoms should be appearing as electrons, implying we could examine electrons as a window into the cosmic sector

Also, if electrons are projections due to the net magnitude constraint, then 100% of cosmic atoms should be appearing as electrons, implying we could examine electrons as a window into the cosmic sector

A very interesting thought... however, we do not observe the electron as a particle until it obtains a material charge, and we "see" the charge, not the electron. The uncharged electron, which would be the 1D project of a cosmic atom, would be a wavefunction--not a particle. Curiously enough, this is actually observed by astronomers as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)--essentially, the "fingerprint" of the structure of the cosmic sector.

The use of positrons to annihilate with electrons to produce gamma rays for heating is a clever application, and one of the safer ones that I've run across. Unfortunately, all the steps leading up to the generation and packaging of positrons are incredibly dangerous, at least as they describe.

The military has always led the field in R&D... most of the tech we have comes from their research. But it looks like they've hit a hard wall with theory--for the military deals with the external reality of Nature, not the artificial reality of social systems. Guess they discovered that conventional physics does not actually match the laws of Nature.

But when it comes to things like this, I'll defer to Dr. Ian Malcolm, of Jurassic Park:

Scientists are actually preoccupied with accomplishment. So they are focused on whether they can do something. They never stop to ask if they should do something.

They're both technicians. They have what I call 'thintelligence'. They see the immediate situation. They think narrowly and they call it 'being focused'. They don't see the surround. They don't see the consequences.